zeldafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:The Legend of Zelda series re-releases
Now this was a good idea. I event learnt something about Zelda II that I didnt know (seizeres! I have a version of the origenal...I think). I asked this on the Ocarina of TIme page but never got a response. The info box for ocarina of time says it was ported for the iQue Player in china November 2003. Does anyone know anyting about this that could be added? Also should Wind Waker's Collectors Edition demo be added? Oni Link 19:27, February 9, 2010 (UTC) Port vs Emulation To me, there is a bit of misuse of the term port in this article (and all over the wiki really). A port is when a piece of software has been recompiled for a different system (BS Zelda, LttP GBA and OoT 3D fall into this category). An emulated game is obviously when the system is running an emulator which is in turn running the game. The Master Quest disc, Collector's Edition disc, Animal Crossing versions, Classic NES Series, Virtual Console and SSBB Masterpiece demos all fall into this category. Even with the changes (typo correction, button colours, Master Quest etc.), they're still ROMs running on emulators on the GC/GBA/Wii. Eyeball226 (talk) 15:34, July 19, 2011 (UTC) :I think I call your definition of emulations ports (though they are being emulated of course) and your ports I call remakes. The definition I always heard was that a port was when the same game is transferred to a different system with little or no changes (it is not "re-made"). This is achieved through emulation yes but with official releases I don't call them emulators or anything. So by my definition ports would include the NES Zelda's being put on GBA, things coming out for the virtual console, etc.. A remake is when the game is actually re-made to a significant degree. I would consider both Master Quest and OoT3D to be remakes, and not ports. Ports are only when the game is kept in pretty much it's original state. That's what I've always thought anyway, but I'm not sure if there's any one widely accepted definition. What do other people think?--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 22:13, July 19, 2011 (UTC) ::Ports are when a game is kept in its original state and not remade, or heavily remade (The Legend of Zelda on Collector's Edition, for example, has rewritten text, but is still considered a port due to it running off the original coding of the game). Essentially, as I mentioned in my example, a port is running off original coding of the original console and, clearly in Collector's Edition case, often induces glitches to the ported game as it has trouble running on the new console. Also, all of your examples of a "port" are based on new technology and software, so it isn't recompiling the original software, whereas recompiling software is going on in all of your examples of what are not ports. - McGillivray227 06:53, July 20, 2011 (UTC) :::Technically speaking, Eyeball226 is right. I looked up a definition of "port", and I found this: To modify (software) for use on a different machine or platform. ROMs, as he explained, are un''modified software, and emulators do exactly what the name says: they emulate the function of the device for which the ROM was originally designed so that the software doesn't need to be modified. Jedimasterlink (talk) 16:09, July 20, 2011 (UTC) ::::As I stated however, the remakes are based off entirely new software whereas the ports are, from a technical standpoint, slightly modded software so it can work with a different console. Also, the gaming industry (which the ''Legend of Zelda is obviously a part of) tends to use the word "port" when describing a game that was developed for one console and simply modded to be compatible on another. And, as far as I know, Collector's Edition is the only one which uses a built-in emulator. - McGillivray227 18:10, July 20, 2011 (UTC) I can see the OP's point, but I feel as though it's not been sufficiently proven that the Virtual Console releases are emulated, though they may quite well be. Also, though I don't particularly fancy this way of doing it, it is considered more of an umbrella term for all of these kinds of things, more easily understandable to readers and stuff. --AuronKaizer ' 19:25, July 20, 2011 (UTC) :::::@FierceDeku: I can see where you're coming from, BS Zelda and OoT 3D would be better termed remakes (although it's quite likely that they started by porting the code and then exchanged art assets and models), LttP GBA is a perfect example of a port. It has some extra content, but it's definitely the same game rather than being a remake. Master Quest is definitely not a port, as people have managed to extract the Master Quest ROM from the disc and boot it on an actual N64 (using pirating hardware of course). I've been drawing the distinction from a technical standpoint where something isn't a port unless it's been recompiled (with any necessary changes) for a different system and is running natively on said system. :::::@McGillivray: The collectors edition games (all of them apart from the Wind Waker demos) are running on emulators and don't qualify as ports by the actual definition of the term. Language is in constant evolution though and misuse simply becomes a new definition. You're right that most of the games industry (or at least games journalism and marketing) use port as you've defined it, but I think you'd find most of the programmers would disagree with you. Each to their own I suppose. :::::@AuronKaizer: You must not follow Wii hacking that closely (fair enough). It's been known for a few years that the Virtual Console is emulation, to the extent where people inject games (don't worry, it's just a link to a google search) that haven't (or won't in the case of EarthBound) be released on the virtual console. :::::I wasn't proposing a change in the page title or anything, I just made a couple of edits to the text to make it more correct that were reverted. :P :::::I hope I haven't come across as arrogant or condescending. Eyeball226 (talk) 02:13, July 21, 2011 (UTC) Both definitions of the terms port/remake/emulation etc. are real, valid uses from different perspectives. This boils down to whether to use the common definition in the game industry/among gamers vs the technically correct original definition from a programmer/creation method point of view. I think that for the purposes of this wiki we should use the gaming definitions, since the other definitions are likely less familiar to most people reading this wiki. We're also talking from an original release/rerelease/remake standpoint, and are not necessarily interested in alluding to the method used to create the end software (we want to say whether the game is on a new console but basically the same or has been re-done, we don't want to bog it down with what level of emulation/adaptation to new hardware is used). If we do that then in the case of people like Eyeball, I think you're unfortunately stuck with everybody's butchering of terms that were previously more descriptive, what with evolving language like you said. I for example hate it when people use the word cyber to talk about electronic/digital things, because that word is "supposed" to mean machines associated with organisms, as in cyborg/cybernetics. But the word has since changed and has stuck that way among all kinds of people, you can even get a degree in "cyber security" now (without becoming robocop).--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce]][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 02:49, July 21, 2011 (UTC) :It should be noted that my edits were pretty minor and unlikely to cause any confusion (whilst being more correct). As an example, "The ports of the game on the Gamecube, GBA, and Wii have corrected some translation errors, most notably in the intro." became "The emulated versions of the game on the Gamecube, GBA, and Wii have corrected some translation errors, most notably in the intro.". :Still, if everyone else opposes this then fair enough. :On a side note, I share your pain regarding the hijacking of the word cyber! Another one that gets me is the loss of meaning of the word 'virtual' (as opposed to 'actual' rather than an adjective meaning 'of computers'). Eyeball226 (talk) 03:11, July 21, 2011 (UTC) I kind of agree with AK, port is a common term to talk about this kind of games. Also I don't see why the two terms cannot codefine a game, the virtual console versions of games could be considered both as ports and emulations. —'TheNewSheik' 04:37, July 21, 2011 (UTC) :I probably should have linked to this in the OP, but here we are. The key word is 'converted'... the virtual console games are literally just running in an emulator, as evidenced by the fact that people have worked out how to swap in other games with no modification of the new game necessary to make it work. The games haven't been converted to run on the Wii, it's just a NES/SNES/N64 ROM in the corresponding emulator. Eyeball226 (talk) 14:41, July 21, 2011 (UTC) ::I still agree that you're technically correct, but it seems that most people want to stick with the "common" definitions, which is understandable. It bothers me when language starts degrading (in cases like this, what FD said, and, one that really bugs me, how "sapient" and "sentient" are used almost interchangeably), but the main goal is formatting this stuff so the majority knows what we're talking about. Unfortunately, sometimes that means being technically incorrect. Jedimasterlink (talk) 18:24, July 21, 2011 (UTC) :::Well we could use both words in the article, but it would be nice to use just general terms as possible instead of a huge mix. Anyway Is there any another term or synonym word we could replace for both? —'TheNewSheik' 03:55, July 22, 2011 (UTC) ::::Re-releases? That's the best I can come up with. Jedimasterlink (talk) 09:44, July 22, 2011 (UTC) :::::Re-releases sounds good to me. "The re-releases of the game on the Gamecube, GBA, and Wii have corrected some translation errors, most notably in the intro." It's no more confusing than port but it's not incorrect either. :::::Both the emulated versions and straight ports would come under 're-releases'. Remakes can obviously be referred to as remakes. All in favour? Eyeball226 (talk) 12:49, July 22, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Agreed —'TheNewSheik' 01:48, July 23, 2011 (UTC) :::::::Agreed. I was so focused on the definitions of port and why we should use one or the other that I didn't think about avoiding the term altogether. "Re-release" clearly states that it's the same game being released again and fits perfectly when contrasted with the other term, "remake". Glad we can find a way to not contribute to the downfall of specificity in the english language ;) So would this mean the page should be moved to "The Legend of Zelda series re-releases"?--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 02:53, July 23, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::Agreed again. A change in the name of the article seems the smartest to avoid any future confusion. —'TheNewSheik' 07:25, July 23, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::Also agreed. When I started this discussion I wasn't proposing a change to the name of the article, but I would say that re-releases is probably the best name the article could have. It covers pretty much everything. Eyeball226 (talk) 13:51, July 23, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::We haven't had anyone oppose the switch to using 're-release', but do we have enough in favour to do it? Should I just go ahead and do it? Eyeball226 (talk) 02:22, July 26, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::: It would be better to call an admin so he can automatically change all links that connect to this article. —'TheNewSheik' 02:59, July 26, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::::Admins can't do that. We have a bot that could, but unfortunately that won't get everything right. Many of the links will also require other changes, like turning ports into re-release, and other such scenarios. I'm also always iffy on how much support is enough. It's difficult, sometimes topics just die around here.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 03:21, July 26, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::::::It's better to change all links with the bot and then checking wich one do need to be edit. Some of the links refers to "true" ports and do not need extra edition. —'TheNewSheik' 03:43, July 26, 2011 (UTC) Even is it does refer to true ports the true port still is a re-release. Still there won't be a huge number of links and sorting through them without a bot should be fairly straight forward. Oni Link 11:24, July 26, 2011 (UTC) :There are 51 pages that link to this article. If one person starts at the top and another at the bottom, this could be taken care of relatively quickly. Of course, we need to be sure this is what we want to do first. I don't see any opposition, so let's allow another twenty-four hours (give or take) for people to decide what they want to do. Jedimasterlink (talk) 22:50, July 26, 2011 (UTC) :Let's do it then. —'TheNewSheik' 03:52, July 29, 2011 (UTC) ::I'm willing to do some of the grunt work if someone will tell me where to start (so I'm not treading on anyone's toes).Eyeball226 (talk) 11:00, July 29, 2011 (UTC) I've went ahead and moved the page along with changing the links to it however I'm going to leave the formatting of the page itself up to someone else since that's were all the specifics of ports, emulations and remakes comes in and I don't really know which is classes as which as well as the fact that maybe it should be spelled out on the page for some users. Anyway the move is done the only thing left is the page itself. Oni Link 12:18, July 29, 2011 (UTC) :I'll have a go at the page. I'll start by just changing port to re-release (along with any necessary changes in sentence structure).Eyeball226 (talk) 18:19, July 29, 2011 (UTC) :Ok, I've had a go at the page. I welcome people to compare it with the previous revision to see if there's anything they disagree with. Eyeball226 (talk) 18:36, July 29, 2011 (UTC)